Whites aren't the privileged class?

[Drunken Irishman]

Instead, they found that resumes with "White-sounding" names--like Jay, Brad, Carrie and Kristen--were 50 percent more likely than those with "Black-sounding" names to receive a callback. The results were striking, holding both for jobs at the lower end of the spectrum--cashier and mailroom clerk positions--and for those at the executive level. Put another way, a White job seeker would have to send out at least 10 resumes to receive a single contact from a potential employer. A Black candidate, meanwhile, would have to send out 15--and this in a "soft" economy with a relatively low rate of new job creation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_9_20/ai_104521293/

But you're right, Mr. Webb - whites are the ones who have a higher rate of racial discrimination.

Give me a fucking break.

[CBR]

1. K&R

More:
-A typical black household makes just 62 percent of the income of a typical white household - a gap that has changed little in 30 years.

-In 2006, black men had an incarceration rate of 3,042 per 100,000 residents, compared to a rate of 487 for white men.

- Blacks are less likely to have health insurance than whites. In 2007, 19.2 percent of blacks did not have health insurance, compared to 10.4 percent of whites.

-From 2005 to 2008, approximately 80 percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise 25 percent and 28 percent of New York City's total population, respectively. During this same time period, only approximately 10 percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise 44 percent of the city's population.

- African-American cab drivers, on average, were tipped approximately one-third less than white cab drivers. African-American drivers were 80 percent more likely to be stiffed than white drivers (28.3 percent vs. 15.7 percent).


From: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/disparit.htm
* Heart disease. African Americans are 13 percent less likely to undergo coronary angioplasty and one-third less likely to undergo bypass surgery than are whites.

* Asthma. Among preschool children hospitalized for asthma, only 7 percent of black and 2 percent of Hispanic children, compared with 21 percent of white children, are prescribed routine medications to prevent future asthma-related hospitalizations.

* Breast cancer. The length of time between an abnormal screening mammogram and the followup diagnostic test to determine whether a woman has breast cancer is more than twice as long in Asian American, black, and Hispanic women as in white women.

* Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. African Americans with HIV infection are less likely to be on antiretroviral therapy, less likely to receive prophylaxis for Pneumocystis pneumonia, and less likely to be receiving protease inhibitors than other persons with HIV. An HIV infection data coordinating center, now under development, will allow researchers to compare contemporary data on HIV care to examine whether disparities in care among groups are being addressed and to identify any new patterns in treatment that arise.

* Nursing home care. Asian American, Hispanic, and African American residents of nursing homes are all far less likely than white residents to have sensory and communication aids, such as glasses and hearing aids. A new study of nursing home care is developing measures of disparities in this care setting and their relationship to quality of care.

[niceypoo]

2. Poor whitey can't get a fair shake...

Didn't ya hear?

[Cary]

59. Indeed.

It seems like the term "reverse discrimination" has been hijacked by the wrong meaning. Doesn't it just mean being nice to people?

[Sparkly]

3. Strawman, and distortion.

Webb did NOT say that "whites are the ones who have a higher rate of racial discrimination."

There's no question there's still racial discrimination. The question Webb raised concerns how preferences affect poor people, regardless of race.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. He said white privilege was a myth.

[Sparkly]

7. As concerns poor white people. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

9. And it isn't...

Did you read this part of the article:

White-sounding" names--like Jay, Brad, Carrie and Kristen--were 50 percent more likely than those with "Black-sounding" names to receive a callback.The results were striking, holding both for jobs at the lower end of the spectrum--cashier and mailroom clerk positions...

Even among poor blacks and whites, the whites still have the upper hand.

[Sparkly]

12. What isn't what?

I said there is racial discrimination.

Whites "have the upper hand" all things being equal, in most circumstances -- especially among other white people.

BUT, when it comes to laws giving preferences to people of color (not necessarily African-American and not necessarily poor), white people who are poor are excluded.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. You're not getting it.

I'm saying even within the lower class system, blacks are discriminated against at a far higher rate than white people.

That goes against everything Webb said. So when you're white and poor, you've got a huge disadvantage. But when you're black and poor, that disadvantage is even greater.

Proving that even poor whites are more privileged than poor blacks.

[Sparkly]

20. I get what you're saying.

Do you get what I'm saying?

YES, poor whites are more privileged than poor blacks.

HOWEVER, many preferences are given for blacks (and other people of color) over whites, including wealthier people of color over poor whites. Hence for example, a middle-class person of color, raised in a suburb and having a good education, gets preference over a poor white person, raised in poverty and having less educational opportunity, when it comes to starting a business, applying to a school, competing for a bid on a government contract, etc.

That, and only that, is what Webb is addressing -- whether racial preferences, on that basis, work to increase diversity and promote racial "harmony." I don't agree with his conclusions, but his points should be discussed without all the distortions.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. No that's not what Webb is saying...

Again, Webb said this:

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years."

He's blatantly saying those who've come to this country in recent decades from other nations are being less discriminated against than poor whites. I don't buy that.

The example you give is not what he's mentioned. As anyone who comes here from Asia, Latin American and Africa can span the class systems.

Ultimately, the example you give is more about class than race.

Hence for example, a middle-class person of color, raised in a suburb and having a good education, gets preference over a poor white person

Yes. But that's not about race. That's about class. You could just as easily say...

Hence for example, a middle-class person of color white, raised in a suburb and having a good education, gets preference over a poor white person.

It all works within the class system (rich, upper class, middle class, lower working class, poor).

If you're at the top of the class system, you're going to have more privilege over those below you. Regardless of race. Though I think we can all concede that even working and middle class blacks are still at at a bigger disadvantage than working and middle class whites.

So instead of looking at making this about middle class versus poor whites (which pits two class systems together that don't have a common denominator) - we need to look at this as an issue between poor blacks and poor whites.

There Webb is wrong when he suggests poor immigrants have a leg up over poor whites.

They don't.

Do middle class blacks have it better than poor whites? Sure. But so do middle class whites. That, to me, is a false point because it really doesn't prove anything. It just proves that those more wealthy have a bigger advantage than those who are poorer. Well we all knew that!

But that isn't exactly what Webb was suggesting...

[Sparkly]

38. Okay, I see what you don't understand.

For business, they're called "minority set-asides;" others fall under "affirmative action" (which, for the record, I agree with).

[Number23]

49. That's not true

Hence for example, a middle-class person of color, raised in a suburb and having a good education, gets preference over a poor white person, raised in poverty and having less educational opportunity, when it comes to starting a business, applying to a school, competing for a bid on a government contract, etc.

During the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, I read multiple articles that blacks were denied loan opportunities regardless of income. Some of the banks are being sued as a result.

http://washingtonindependent.com/58243/class-action-suit-accuses-wells-fargo-of-discrimination-by-neighborhood

Snip: "Last month, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued the lender, alleging that blacks and Hispanics were sold high-cost subprime loans more frequently than white borrowers with similar incomes. The suit contended loan officers were offered incentives by the bank to steer borrowers into the more expensive loans, and that white borrowers generally received the lower-cost prime mortgages."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1344141220090313

Snip: "According to complaints filed with the U.S. district court in Los Angeles, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said Wells Fargo and HSBC subjected African-American borrowers to "disparate adverse treatment" by imposing more onerous loan terms than on white borrowers.

The civil rights group also said the lenders wrongfully steered borrowers to less-favorable loans than they qualified for. It said African-Americans were about one-third more likely to be issued higher-rate loans than white borrowers with the same qualifications."

I know these refer to home loans, but home ownership is one of the first precursors to wealth in this country. If home ownership is so skewed, then I would imagine that the numbers for business ownership could be just as bad.

[sandnsea]

57. Not true

Of course if you use Fox News race-baiting to make your arguments, it's easy to come up with the same old boohoo white boy lines.

But when you look at the facts, this reverse discrimination crap just doesn't hold up. There are as many programs for low-income whites as anybody else. The SBA was created in 1953. There are still lawsuits against them for being racist. How can you even pretend white people are being passed over. It's a bullshit argument made by broke-dumb-drug-addicted-lazyass-hicks.

7(a) 11 Program - This loan program is for designated areas of high unemployment or concentrations of low-income individuals.

[ThomCat]

11. He would still be wrong.

I've been homeless, dirt poor, trying to live on $0.50 per day, and I'm white, but even at that level I still saw people treating me better than someone else become of racism. I still saw people treating me better than someone else because of sexism.

The payoffs from white privilege get much smaller, but white privilege is still there.
The payoffs from male privilege get much smaller, but male privilege is still there.

prejudice doesn't go away just because you're poor.

[Sparkly]

13. I agree completely.

Not sure I know what that has to do with the Op Ed, but I agree.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. "white" isn't a class. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

6. You're right. But the white class system is.

[Sparkly]

8. "Whites aren't the privileged class," but it's not a class, but the white class system is a class.

Do I have that right? :crazy:

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Do you?

We're talking about class system as it pertains to race.

The poor white class still has privileges the poor black class does not.

How is this hard to grasp?

[Sparkly]

15. Not hard to grasp -- and not the issue raised.

People of color (NOT only African Americans) who may be well-off are granted preferences that poor people -- if they are white -- are not.

The question is whether this promotes diversity and racial "harmony."

You can disagree with Webb's conclusion, but all the knee-jerk distortions of his argument here preclude a real discussion about it.

[ProSense]

17. "You can disagree with Webb's conclusion, but all the knee-jerk distortions of his argument "

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

<...>

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

link

What distortion of his argument?

[Sparkly]

21. Selected quotes out of context.

You're much too clever not to understand this.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

(snip)

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

It is a distortion of his argument to say or imply that he thinks all white people are discriminated against, or that black people are not discriminated against, or any of the other ridiculous assertions cropping up around here.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. I didn't quote anything out of context...

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.


List those programs. Prove those programs have damaged racial harmony. Prove blacks have it better now than whites because of those programs.

Poor black schools get less funding than poor white schools.

Even if he thinks it's only poor white people who get discriminated against the most - it's still wrong.

Poor black people are lower on the totem pole and I think it's rather dishonest to imply that poor whites are being discriminated against at a higher rate.

I grew up as a poor white and I still had it better than many non-whites.

[Sparkly]

28. You keep comparing

poor white people vs. poor black people. THAT IS NOT AT ISSUE -- I don't know how to make it any clearer.

The programs discussed include -- to quote Webb -- "business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts." There are indeed significant boosts and advantages in these areas.

Nobody said "blacks have it better than whites because of those programs."

Ask Webb about "racial harmony," but I believe he's talking about resentment for preferences based on race alone, without consideration for other disadvantages.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. That is the issue...

And it's also the issue that Webb is making this about race when he doesn't seem to have a problem with the fact that many middle class whites get preferential treatment over poor blacks.

Again, why don't you see that?

It's ingenuous to suggest the problem is between middle class blacks and poor whites. It isn't.

Now if we wants to make this about the middle class getting advantages the poor do not get - I'm right there with him.

But it's not correct to pit middle class blacks against poor whites.

[Sparkly]

42. I give up.

Have fun, kids. :hi:

[ProSense]

33. "business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts

...There are indeed significant boosts and advantages in these areas."

No:

There are about 29.6 million U.S. small businesses, generating about $9 trillion in revenues. Only 14 percent are minority owned and only 1.4 million (5 percent) of them are black owned. Another 1.7 million (6.5 percent) are Hispanic owned. They (all minority owned businesses) account for $694 billion or 7.7 percent of the overall revenues.

Maybe Webb can explain how whites are disadvantaged in this scenario.

[CBR]

36. STUDY: Race Blind Admissions Could Constrain Minority College Enrollment

http://diverseeducation.com/article/12162/

"Researchers at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University found that a universal ban on affirmative action in college admissions could reduce the number of minorities at the nation’s best colleges and universities by as much as 35 percent."

"The positive effects of affirmative action programs in higher education are clear in the study. In 1976, minority undergraduate students composed just 17 percent of the student population. By 2004, more than 30 percent of undergraduate students were underrepresented minorities, the report notes."

[ProSense]

30. Selected quotes? It's two entire paragraphs.

Are you saying that those point should be ignored because you think your selected points are valid?

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Do you actually find merit in that point in relation to institutionalized discrimination?

Do you actually believe that diversity is reparations for past maltreatment at the hands of the governement?

So people who come to this country should be subjected to discrimination because whites have been here longer?

[Sparkly]

41. LOL -- two entire paragraphs.

You're much too clever to believe the things you're saying here. Very clever, indeed.

Nobody said anything of the kind, and you know it.

I'm sorry I wasted my time -- I didn't want to believe you'd actually keep up the twisting, but I can see you'll go on and on.

Me: "Apples are red and bananas are yellow."

You: "What? So you think apples are better than bananas?"

Me: "No, I'm just saying one's red and one's yellow."

You: "So you think yellow should be banned and we should paint everything in the world red?"

Me: "No, you're distorting this. I'll explain again: apples are red and bananas are yellow."

You: "Why do you think it's okay to paint bananas red and make apples all purple plaid? That makes no sense!"

:rofl: It must be fun being you. Not so fun trying to have an honest discussion with you, though.

[ProSense]

45. What's funny is you didn't address the response.

?

[Sparkly]

47. I addressed one after another after another after another after another and....

... now I see how futile it is -- it'll never stop.

It's amusing how far it'd go, and it's convinced me of things I didn't want to believe, so in that sense it was informative. For the record, no I don't think bananas need stripes or that apples should be carved to look like pumpkins, nor that the moon is made of green cheese or that cats are miniature walruses, or anything else you'd like to make up!

(Points for creativity, though!)

You run along and have fun now! :hi:

[ProSense]

48. No, you

didn't address these questions

After all, you posted the paragraph claiming that Webb's argument was being distorted.

[Alcibiades]

54. How about this?

"the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America."

So Webb is claiming a unique understanding of race in America, and wants to create a new dialogue, one that acknowledges our history and the many complexities involved in race and class in the US...

... and he gets there by writing that "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post", a most tortured use of a slave torture metaphor, as a way to demonstrate this understanding.

He's not making some convoluted defense of our status as a post-racial society: he's blowing a dog whistle, one aimed at gaining the support of "many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years." He's also factually incorrect to assert that whites have not benefited from "special government programs."

You seem to like Webb, for some reason, but this is straight out of George Wallace's playbook.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. That is the issue raised...

Webb said this...

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years."

I don't buy that. They suffer discrimination across the board. From people to the government.

Look at this article about funding for black and white schools:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2998809

If I had to choose between being poor and white or poor and black, I'd choose poor and white every single time.

[Sparkly]

24. I'd forgotten how frustrating this is.

"If I had to choose between being poor and white or poor and black, I'd choose poor and white every single time."

THAT IS NOT THE COMPARISON AT ISSUE.

In the two sentences you quoted alone, you can see he wrote about recent immigrants being "the beneficiaries of special government programs."

You say you don't "buy that" because they suffer discrimination. YES, perhaps Asians et al suffer discrimination, but whether you "buy it" or not, they are also the recipients of preferences by virtue of their skin, even if they're wealthy, OVER poor people working up the ladder if they're white.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. It's only frustrating because you don't see it.

I grew up poor. I knew about the special government programs. Well most importantly, my mom knew about them. I'm white. I know what Jim Webb is saying and he is absolutely wrong. I do not believe the government discriminates against poor whites in favor of poor and working class blacks.

They might discriminate against the poor in favor of the rich - but it doesn't happen based on race. That's a class issue and Webb shouldn't bring race into it because he does appear ignorant.

So no, I don't buy it.

[Sparkly]

29. "I do not believe government discriminates"

Well, it does. Sorry. It is intended to level a slanted field, and arguably, it does that. Webb's Op Ed provides food for thought, though.

[Drunken Irishman]

34. Against poor whites in favor of poor and working class blacks...

I don't believe they do.

Like I said, I grew up poor. I used free lunch. I paid for college through the Pell Grant. My family used food stamps.

I don't ever feel blacks had a leg up on me. Ever.

[Sparkly]

39. Believe it or not, it's a fact.

The argument is not whether or not such programs exist, but whether they should (or perhaps whether they should be modified).

Again, it's not about whether "blacks had a leg up on you," but about programs giving preference to ALL people of color -- regardless of economic status -- without regard to class.

[Drunken Irishman]

40. Ridiculous...

Especially when you consider that even today, most poor blacks and middle class blacks are at a bigger disadvantage economically and educationally than their class partners.

[Sparkly]

44. :sigh: I give up.

:rofl: You guys are reeeeeeeally good at "not getting this."

(Caveman Lawyer: "I don't understand your strange statements about government programs! I'm just a caveman!" Yeah, okay. Good luck with that.)

[Laughing Mirror]

60. Was Webb's wife a beneficiary of those special government programs for immigrants?

He didn't mention that, but somebody should ask him.

Also it is a lie for him, a Democratic senator from Virginia, to claim that Latin American immigrants have not suffered discrimination. He needs only look around his state (Prince William County in particular, and its laws targeting immigrants) to see the outright absurdity of writing such a thing.

But it's the op-ed pages of Wall Street Journal. So it's fantasy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. +1

[mzmolly]

14. Excellent

information Drunken Irishman. :hi:

[Drunken Irishman]

19. mzmolly!

I haven't seen you around for a while! Where've you been?

[mzmolly]

23. I'm great. Thanks for asking. How bout you?

:D

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Doin' well...just enjoying the summer.

Still get a chuckle over that conspiracy that linked you to the Obama campaign and said you were being paid off. Ever get a check? :D

[mzmolly]

32. LOL :)

Thankfully, I can laugh at it now. Still waiting for the big paycheck, darnit! :rofl: Did you get yours yet? To my understanding we're all on the payroll. :silly:

[Uzybone]

35. the race baiting seems to be amping up

I wonder what the 2012 elections will look like at this pace.

There will be no McCain (the one noble thing he did was non plunge headfirst into racist politics) to temper the GOP. When a "democrat" like Webb is writing this rubbish then we are headed for some really slimy stuff.

[CBR]

37. What is disturbing is that DU is buying it. nt

[miscsoc]

43. I agree with everything Webb says up until he says:

"Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. "

How the hell does he come to that conclusion? The rest of the article makes so much sense I can't see how he can believe this. We need more diversity programs, not less. The problem with existing programs is that they are so purely cosmetic and do not actually address historical injustice, they just let politicians pretend they have. We need diversity programs that take into account race AND history AND socio-economic background AND gender AND religious background AND disability AND innumerable other things.

"Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes. "

This guy can't really believe that abolishing government diversity programs will advance this aim! The whole reason we have these programs is that because in their absence "artificial distinctions such as race" do determine outcomes.

[sandnsea]

56. We have all of that

We have college programs that give low income kids and first generation students advantages. We've got programs for disabled people. We've got lots of programs to help people these days.

He just wants to end the programs for minorities.

I don't know how you could believe he'd come to any other conclusion with a title like "white privilege is a myth".

[miscsoc]

61. I probably didn't even read the title,a ctually.

I just checked and it is called "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege" which should have warned me. It's anything but a myth.

He still talks a bit of sense in the article, and I don't think those programs you refer to are meaningful. We need programs that actually help the groups they claim to. i.e. I believe in a comprehensive system of quotas.

[Number23]

46. You are fabulous, DI.

Kicked and rec'd

This is such a frustrating, almost maddening conversation. This thread proves it.

[Number23]

50. Hey, DI check this out

"New study finds racism behind black-white wealth gap"

I know, I know. It sounds like a total "well, duuuh!" but this was interesting and ties in with your excellent OP:

Money Quote: "The Brandeis report also found that middle-income whites experienced a greater increase in net worth than high income blacks. Average white families earning $30,000 had accumulated $74,000, while blacks earning more than $50,000 owned only $18,000, for a wealth gap of $56,000."

Read that snip again. That means that MIDDLE CLASS whites STILL had greater increases in net worth over HIGH INCOME black people from 1984 - 2007.

So Webb's assertion that whites are hurting due to affirmative action just could not be more untrue. White folks still run the roost in this country, regardless of income or "class." One of the reasons that the "it's not race, it's class!" folks are so laughable.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. Thanks 23!

There is ample evidence to suggest that at every level of the economic ladder, whites have it better than blacks.

It's astonishing to me that this is even up for debate.

[costahawk1987]

51. I've gotten by with drunken, rowdy nonsense

right in front of the police. Looking back, I don't think I'd have gotten a pass if I were a person of color. Soon afterwards, a black gentleman was hassled while just walking down my street. That may seem off topic, but I see it as two forms of the same thing: racial profiling.

[ProSense]

53. If you really want to talk race, consider the treatment of

Shirley Sherrod and Sarah Palin

One gets fired because her words were distorted to portray her as a racists. The other continues to make racially insensitive (and nonsensical) statements that fuel speculation she plans to run for President.

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. The reason that white Americans can operate with impunity in their communities,

is because they "own" the law enforcement agencies. I'm referring to red counties, of course. These kind of communities still exist in the strangest of places where conspiracy, fraud, racketeering and even manslaughter go unanswered by the legal authorities because the people who are behind these things are good ole boys. At what point does the US Attorney Offices step in to clean up the State agencies, or are they bought too?